Is it time to put Ol’ Yeller down?

[DWoolley]

As a profession, land surveying in California should be willing to reassess whether the assumptions that once justified exclusive control over broad swaths of geospatial practice still hold.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, they did. Licensed surveyors generally possessed materially greater technical understanding of GPS error modeling, coordinate systems, geodetic datums, and post-processing of vector data, including network adjustment, constraint application, and reconciliation of measurements to controlling monuments and legal intent. The regulatory posture at that time plausibly served a public-protection function.

That technical gap no longer exists.

What is more concerning is that the legal and statutory fluency presumed to accompany licensure is no longer consistently present either. Rather than disciplined compliance with the California Public Resources Code, I am increasingly encountering licensed surveyors who are unfamiliar with its applicability to their own work. That observation is not offered as an indictment of individuals, but as a warning sign for the profession. Licensure only carries moral authority if it reliably correlates to superior competence and statutory awareness.

Meanwhile, GIS professionals and other geospatial practitioners now operate with the same GNSS equipment, software, and processing workflows used by surveyors. Post-processed kinematic data, datum transformations, and error reporting are no longer specialized capabilities exclusive to licensees. In practice, many non-licensed practitioners demonstrate technical rigor equal to, and in some cases exceeding, that of licensed counterparts in these domains. In the alternative, licensees no longer demonstrate competencies that exceed GIS folks.

If licensure no longer reliably distinguishes either technical mastery or legal comprehension, then we should ask ourselves what function continued exclusion is serving. Public protection must be demonstrated, not presumed.

For decades, GIS professionals sought collaboration. The profession’s dominant response, often summarized as “just say no” or reduced to the dismissive “GIS means Get It Surveyed,” has had predictable consequences. The willingness to collaborate has narrowed, not because of hostility, but because patience has limits.

Yes, this conversation necessarily implicates deregulation. But deregulation is not inherently a retreat from responsibility when the underlying risk landscape has changed. Sometimes professional integrity requires acknowledging that a framework which once served the public well has outlived its justification.

There is an uncomfortable analogy here, but an honest one. Like the boy in Old Yeller, stewardship sometimes means ending what once protected us, because allowing it to persist unexamined causes greater harm than letting it go.

This is not a call to erase the boundary profession or diminish the role of land surveyors in defining property rights, boundary resolution, or legal title. It is a call to ask, in good faith, whether continuing to assert broad authority over geospatial measurement and analysis still serves the public interest.

If there are concrete risks, statutory necessities, or public harms that would arise from reopening portions of geospatial practice to qualified GIS professionals under defined limits, they should be articulated clearly. If not, then the profession owes itself, and the public, an honest reckoning.

If no clear public risk can be identified, then professional responsibility may require us to ask the hardest question of all: is it time to put Ol’ Yeller down—“Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.”

DWoolley

[Peter Ehlert]

agreed. now is the time we need to take on the mindset of Grandpa Sanderson, and teach Travis about the realities of life
Ol’ Yeller needs to be put down down, gently

[Jim Frame]

There remains a requirement that a licensed professional practice within his/he area of competence. Not all survey tasks require a thorough understanding of measurement errors, and a lot of productive, useful work is signed off by a licensee who may not have an encyclopedic knowledge of the technology employed to produce it. Yet the projects get built, occasional screwups are paid for by the licensee, his employer or his insurer, and the world goes on.

However, there are also tasks that require a more detailed comprehension of the measurement process and tools, and who better than a licensed land surveyor to fill that role? The equipment manufacturers paint a beautiful picture about the accuracy of their equipment, but mostly what that does is lead the gullible down the garden path.

A couple of weeks ago I was talking with a guy who kind of fell into the business of GIS consulting. He has since branched out into low-level (drone) photogrammetry. He confidently told me that his RTK system provides sub-centimeter accuracy for his maps, without any ground control. When I described some of the methods I have to employ to get reliable 2 cm vertical datum accuracy on a single mark, he just looked at me like I was an idiot. He mentioned that he thought about getting a land surveyor's license, but decided not to bother.

[LS_8750]

Yeah, don't bother.

"Cuttin the heads off of parking meters Captain..."

"It's all up to you....."

FAFO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPc5Xh3e4dw

[DWoolley]

Jim Frame:

Overconfidence driven by manufacturer claims can be dangerous, but danger does not disappear simply because a license is present. A licensed surveyor who does not meaningfully understand the tools or limitations involved is no less capable of producing harm than an unlicensed practitioner who overestimates accuracy.

Which raises an uncomfortable question: in the absence of documented, systemic damages tied to GIS or non-licensed geospatial work—and given that most disputes are resolved through indemnity, insurance, or correction—what role is licensure actually playing in risk reduction today?

In the course of my work, I have had occasion to observe land surveyor negligence matters in court and deposition settings. The errors I see most often are not failures of advanced measurement theory or high-order geodesy. They are failures of fundamentals: inadequate records research, insufficient redundancy in measurements, failure to collect and preserve physical and documentary evidence, misunderstanding how fundamental principles apply to that evidence, and, too often, cutting corners to save clients money—even when doing so crosses legal or ethical lines.

These are precisely the risks licensure is meant to capture and mitigate: disciplined records research, evidentiary rigor, redundancy in measurement, principled application of fundamentals, and adherence to legal and ethical constraints even when doing so is inconvenient or costly. When failures persist in these areas, it is reasonable to ask whether licensure, as currently structured and enforced, is still aligned with the protections it is intended to provide.

DWoolley

LS_8750: Cool Hand Luke—Paul Newman, George Kennedy, Strother Martin—has been my favorite film since early adulthood. If you are not familiar with it, particularly younger viewers, it is well worth adding to your queue.

[David Kendall]

LS_8750: Cool Hand Luke—Paul Newman, George Kennedy, Strother Martin—has been my favorite film since early adulthood. If you are not familiar with it, particularly younger viewers, it is well worth adding to your queue.

Don’t miss young Harry Dean Stanton singing “Just a Closer Walk with Thee” about halfway through (on the way to visit Arletta)

[LS_8750]

No. It's not time to put Ol' Yeller down. He's feeling happy.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBxMPqxJGqI

The discussions over on Linkedin would make the prudent land surveyor think the world has gone mad, boastful discussions about work product that clearly violates the law. But hey, knock yourselves out.

I think this discussion originated when the rope was invented, then it led to the compass, the transit, and on and on.

I think the land surveying profession is a bit off track in many cases, but not in others.

To return to Harry Dean Stanton.... It seems that many surveyors no longer have a code to live by, they've reduced themselves to ordinary people, spending their lives avoiding tense situations. Well, there are some in the land surveying community that spend much of their time getting into tense situations....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcJXT5lc1Bg

[DWoolley]

...
I think this discussion originated when the rope was invented, then it led to the compass, the transit, and on and on.
...

Those with an interest in historic land surveying should watch for the next Ten Minute Surveyor, scheduled for release on January 21, 2026. This episode will feature Jack Coffee Hays, California’s first Surveyor General. In that era, land surveying was dangerous work—surveyors who were unprepared, unlucky, or simply in the wrong place at the wrong time were often killed while carrying out their duties.

In contrast, modern technology and institutional insulation have removed the consequences that once enforced competence and integrity, allowing flimsy and dishonest practitioners to prosper by ignoring legal obligations to reduce client costs, in environments where failure and deception are rarely penalized.

Anyone familiar with Jack Hays understands this difference immediately. A land surveyor would have been hard-pressed to intimidate him, deceive him, or commit fraud under his authority. Hays was a man whose reputation alone imposed discipline. Had he lived another twenty years, it is doubtful that figures like John Benson—and the machinery of fraud surrounding him—would have operated with the impunity they ultimately enjoyed.

DWoolley

The issue that needs to be decisively resolved is whether GPS or conventional measurements performed under the guise of GIS or construction should fall exclusively within the practice of licensed land surveying. This is not a turf dispute—it is a question of responsibility, authority, and consequences. What is the responsible professional path forward?

[Jim Frame]

In that era, land surveying was dangerous work—surveyors who were unprepared, unlucky, or simply in the wrong place at the wrong time were often killed while carrying out their duties.

It can still happen today. In 2020 I had a very close call with a couple of large German Shepherd-mix dogs. Were it not for the presence of a big (3" diameter, 6' long) tree branch that happened to be at my feet when they surrounded me, I might not be here today. (No dogs or humans were harmed in that encounter, but it could have turned out very differently.) Twice I've had rifles fired in my general direction (once knowingly, once unwittingly, though the bullets didn't care about the distinction). And, of course, the most persistent threat of all is the distracted driver.

[DWoolley]

Jim Frame:

You are absolutely right—the danger hasn’t disappeared. What has changed is how visible and immediate it feels.

In Jack Hays’ era, the risk was far more direct and often final. Surveyors working in contested territory—particularly in Texas and the Southwest—were oftentimes killed outright by Comanche war parties. Surveying parties were viewed as advance agents of settlement and land claims, which made them deliberate targets. Authority, resolve, and personal credibility weren’t abstract traits then—they were survival tools.

That context matters when looking at what came later. If Jack Hays had lived in a slightly later era—when land surveying licensure was formalized and enforcement mechanisms were emerging—it is unlikely that what I refer to as the “Benson Bullseye” would exist today. The institutional vacuum that allowed the Benson syndicate to take root, spread, and leave a lasting professional hangover might never have materialized.

What the upcoming Ten Minute Surveyor episode focuses on instead is Hays himself. Trained as a land surveyor, Hays became the first Sheriff of San Francisco in 1850—at a time when San Francisco was widely regarded as one of the most violent and lawless cities the United States has ever seen. He confronted violent criminals and the infamous vigilantes of the day alike. Fraud, intimidation, and lawlessness were not things Hays tolerated, in surveying or in public office - ideal traits for a Surveyor General.

DWoolley

[pls5528]

I think the degradation of knowledge started before 1990, in fact I think it started around the time when the newer technology became available and widely used.There also is a driving force within a person to become better in whatever he/she does and take it upon themselves to learn what you don't know. I got that drive from my father (a surveyor and civil engineer). In the 1980's, there were some excellent training three day seminars taught by the best from NGS (e.g. Ed McKay), but due to budget constraints, have been done away with. Available and affordable education would certainly help, but, the right mindset and the drive for an individual has to be there or, it won't work. When AutoCad, and GPS were in there infancy, I felt that I needed to research and educate myself to learn these tools. Nobody paid me, I did it on my own time and sacrificed any out of pocket monies to achieve that. I have seen much of the newer generation either don't have the drive, nor want to do anything without being paid to do this education.
If you look around you, in all trades and professions, it is rare to find a worker that is truly dedicated to their work anymore. And, so "That's the way it is" as was said by one of my favorite news anchors!

[bryanmundia]

I work closely with GIS professionals on a regular basis, and I want to offer a perspective grounded in practical, day-to-day collaboration rather than theory or assumption.

First, I agree with the spirit of collaboration expressed in this discussion. GIS professionals are valuable contributors to the broader geospatial ecosystem, and many of them are highly capable, motivated, and eager to grow. However, my experience has consistently shown that there remains a meaningful and consequential gap—not in access to equipment, but in understanding the underlying geodetic principles, procedural rigor, and evidentiary framework required to achieve and defend true survey-level accuracy.

One of the most persistent areas of misunderstanding involves datums and epochs. Many GIS professionals are comfortable working within coordinate systems as abstract reference frameworks but lack a practical understanding of datum realization, epoch propagation, and the real-world consequences of tectonic motion—particularly here in California. Our region is subject to continuous crustal deformation as the Pacific and North American plates move relative to one another. Coordinates are not static. Without proper epoch management and transformation, positions degrade in temporal relevance. The difference between NAD83(2011) at epoch 2010.00 and a current epoch realization can exceed several feet depending on location and timeframe. To a surveyor resolving boundary evidence, establishing control networks, or supporting infrastructure projects, that difference is not academic—it is material.

More importantly, surveyors do not simply measure positions. We establish defensible spatial relationships grounded in legal precedent, monumentation, redundancy, adjustment theory, and evidence evaluation. The ability to press a button on a GNSS receiver does not confer the ability to evaluate positional integrity, identify systematic bias, design a robust observation scheme, or reconcile measurements within a legally defensible framework. These competencies are developed through training, mentorship, experience, and licensure—not through access to technology alone.

For example, currently there is a program to provide terrestrial LiDAR of every street in the Unincorporated County jurisdiction. The company for which this work was contracted to just presented to a group of GIS professionals throughout the county and I was fortunate enough to sit in and listen to this presentation. It was flashy and sexy and they do some really good work. However, when it came to positional uncertainty of their unconstrained model that puffed up their chest and proudly said that they can achieve +/-0.07' accuracy within their models. What they didn't say, but what was shown on their presentation, was that this positional uncertainty was at one sigma. They continued on stating that this work product was robust enough to evaluate ADA compliance on wheelchair ramps and ADA path of travel as well as that you could use this as an alternative to a traditional pre-design topographic survey. I raised my hand and asked the simple question, so what benchmarks throughout the County are these models tied to? The room was somewhat silent. I then asked about their accuracy statement and why they were only confident of their measurements 68% of the time. Again, no answer was really given. This my friends is where we need to step in and help.

That said, I do not view this as an adversarial issue. In fact, I see it as an opportunity.

Surveyors have always served as the bridge between raw measurement and reliable spatial truth. Rather than viewing GIS professionals as competitors, we should view them as collaborators and, perhaps more importantly, as future surveyors. Many GIS professionals are eager to learn and genuinely interested in improving their technical depth. They represent a significant pool of talent that could strengthen the surveying profession if given the opportunity, mentorship, and guidance.

This is where surveyors can—and should—lead.

We can mentor.
We can teach.
We can help them understand datums, epochs, network design, adjustment theory, and the evidentiary standards that define our profession.

In doing so, we not only protect the integrity of spatial data, but we also strengthen the future of surveying itself.

The answer is not deregulation or surrender of professional responsibility. The answer is leadership.

Surveyors are not obsolete. We are essential—not because we possess exclusive access to technology, but because we possess the judgment, training, and professional accountability required to ensure that spatial measurements are accurate, defensible, and meaningful.

And if we embrace mentorship rather than exclusion, we may find that many of today’s GIS professionals become tomorrow’s licensed surveyors—strengthening both professions in the process.

[Ric7308]

THIS! (what Bryan said above)

[hellsangle]

Well said, Bryan . . .

Although i find that 99% of GIS is conceptual; ie inventory of fire victims homes; Zeke's Look-Out.org tracking fire behavior in real time; zoning, etc; planning . . .

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a GIS product being employed for design-only purposes . . . that would require survey-grade metadata?

Great treatise, Bryan!

Have a good week all!

Crazy Phil - Sonoma

Oh . . . and don't forget Valentine's Day is coming up

[bryanmundia]

Well said, Bryan . . .

Although i find that 99% of GIS is conceptual; ie inventory of fire victims homes; Zeke's Look-Out.org tracking fire behavior in real time; zoning, etc; planning . . .

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see a GIS product being employed for design-only purposes . . . that would require survey-grade metadata?

Great treatise, Bryan!

Have a good week all!

Crazy Phil - Sonoma

Oh . . . and don't forget Valentine's Day is coming up

Thanks Phil,

Don't get me started on that term "survey-grade" lol.

[DWoolley]

“Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.”
DWoolley

If we continue to resist reasonable measures designed to reinforce competence within the statutory framework we already claim, then we should pause. We have an opportunity to reflect honestly on where we stand.

For roughly thirty years, the GIS community matured alongside us. They invested in technology, workforce development, and practical capability. They reached out repeatedly for collaboration. That history is documented. Too often, the response from the land surveying community was distance rather than engagement.

Meanwhile, we did not uniformly fortify our own geodetic literacy or statutory compliance.

I am not operating in a vacuum. We review substantial volumes of work product. We see coordinate misuse. We see misunderstandings of reference frames. We see routine statutory noncompliance defended as optional - each by licensed land surveyors. Recall, Bryan Mundia, when we tried to get land surveyors to set monuments? [As for the 0.07' referenced in the previous posts, we both know the land surveyors regularly represent their RTN to be subcentimeter and do not know what one sigma means]. In the hour proceeding this post, I had a land surveyor, with an uncooperative disposition, arguing in front of his client the PRC was not applicable because "this isn't a record of survey". He further argued, for the same reasons, "found monument" was sufficient and my asking for descriptions was overreach.

At some point, integrity requires alignment. We cannot credibly rely on statutes to constrain others in areas where our own competency and adherence are uneven.

From my perspective, the path forward is not continued exclusion. It is release. Define clearly what requires boundary law and evidentiary judgment. Provide a handful of substantive webinars on datum literacy, reference frames, and accuracy disclosure. Teach them how to fish. Then let GIS, underground utility, and aerial mapping professionals operate within that space without artificial constraint.

We have had thirty years, another thirty years will only put an explanation point on it. I find myself routinely explaining the legal and technical fundamentals to folks that have been licensed for a number of years. If it was 1875 today, and Benson was operating in your plain view, what would you do about it, if anything? Join him or impede him?

If we chose not to reinforce the ground, we should not be surprised when others build on it. In fact, why not offer them some pointers until they get their foundation built. We cannot hold exclusivity over the public, when the land surveyors lack the competencies, by using a license to hold the public hostage.

Goodbye, Yeller.

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

“Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then said I, Here am I; send me.”
DWoolley

For those who may not know me, I have spent the past 35 years advocating for the land surveying profession. That work was neither a success nor a failure. It was simply work.

I taught college-level courses for many years, to both entry-level students and licensed professionals. At one point that meant 36 Saturdays a year for many years. Later it became Tuesday nights and alternating Saturdays. I delivered seminars from Humboldt to San Diego, always without compensation, with proceeds returned to the hosting chapter or organization.

For more than twenty years I taught weekend license preparation classes at no charge. The purpose was straightforward: build our ranks with like-minded people who respected the law, the evidence, and the discipline of the practice. My current Saturday class may be the last. On the most recent exam cycle, four of five attendees passed, which has been typical.

I served the association beyond paying dues—as officer, director, legislative chair. Our chapter advanced more legislative proposals than any other in the past fifteen years. I chaired committees, including QBS, and supported initiatives such as “No Credential, No Work.” Together with my staff and the OC JPPLC, I leaned into enforcement—studied it, supported it, served as an expert without charge, and filed complaints where appropriate. I learned that roughly 70 percent of complaints are closed without formal discipline under the label “compliance achieved.” The quiet message is often to keep one’s nose clean. Few do so consistently over time.

None of this is grievance. In hindsight, I might have been wiser to cultivate quieter hobbies—perhaps ships in bottles—but this work was purposeful for me.

The advocacy work I continue to do now, I largely do for my own enjoyment. I am grateful for the opportunities the profession afforded me and for the long arc of work behind me. I knew the Benson blood was there; I underestimated its depth and reach.

Some have questioned my motivations. They have evolved over the years, as most motivations do. For the last twenty-five years, my professional outlook was guided by anticipation. You may call it idealism, but I believed this era—2025 and beyond—would be the land surveyor’s golden moment.

Twenty-five years ago, I did the math. The pre-1982 engineer cohort would be exiting leadership. In many firms, engineers owned the company. Surveying was often positioned as a loss leader to secure engineering contracts. Margin pressure flowed downhill. Surveyors were expected—explicitly or implicitly—to go along to get along. If evidentiary rigor or statutory compliance became inconvenient, it was easier to temper the surveyor than to jeopardize the engineering relationship. And when necessary, an engineer could legally sign and seal much of the same work product. That structure shaped behavior.

I believed that when that generational structure shifted, surveyors would finally step forward as independent professionals—honest brokers of spatial truth—no longer operating in the shadow of another discipline on matters fundamentally tied to land title, boundary law, mapping integrity, and spatial accountability.

I also understood that we were not collectively prepared for that role. We needed more licensees. We needed stronger command of the law, of evidence, of geodetic principles. So I prepared accordingly. I worked. I taught. I engaged. I believed this would be our time.

I have always viewed land surveying as essential to an orderly society. Secure land title is foundational to the American system. Surveyors were never intended to be merely technicians; we were meant to be custodians of that 400-year-old framework. Our role—our duty—was to stand watch on the land title, mapping, and measurement wall.

Technology was supposed to make the work more efficient and more precise. It was never intended to replace knowledge, legal literacy, or professional judgment. Yet too often efficiency has displaced understanding.

Fifteen, twenty, even twenty-five years ago, many rank-and-file surveyors—people who simply wanted steady work—often demonstrated stronger command of the legal framework and deeper respect for professional obligations than I consistently observe today.

That is not nostalgia. It is observation.

If we are going to discuss authority, regulation, or the future of the profession, we should begin with an honest assessment of where we actually stand. At some point, integrity requires alignment. We cannot credibly rely on statutes to constrain others in areas where our own competency and adherence are uneven. Integrity sometimes means allowing the system to recalibrate, possibly deregulate, rather than defending authority we have not uniformly upheld.

DWoolley

[David Kendall]

I have always viewed land surveying as essential to an orderly society. Secure land title is foundational to the American system. Surveyors were never intended to be merely technicians; we were meant to be custodians of that 400 year old framework. Our role—our duty—was to stand watch on the land title, mapping, and measurement wall.

Technology was supposed to make the work more efficient and more precise. It was never intended to replace knowledge, legal literacy, or professional judgment. Yet too often efficiency has displaced understanding.

….many rank-and-file surveyors …… often demonstrated stronger command of the legal framework and deeper respect for professional obligations than I consistently observe today.

This concept is being lost in translation. The mechanics can be readily taught. Reverence and care are more challenging to communicate. The daily practice is mathematical application of geometry and the minor details (like provenance of monuments) get lost in the shuffle.

In the past 3-4 years I have supported 4 individuals in obtaining licenses through mentoring, references, encouragement and logistical guidance. One of these has never drafted a record of survey. I wonder how many others get across the line without the fundamental practical knowledge of communicating evidence and reasoning.

The message I receive from my employer is that professional judgment is less valuable than achievement of performance metrics. Quantity is better than quality.

Mr Woolley I respect your commitment to the profession and I am enjoying this conversation. Especially this quote:

At some point, integrity requires alignment. We cannot credibly rely on statutes to constrain others in areas where our own competency and adherence are uneven.

[LS_8750]

Let's do it....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBeHbMzyG7A